Redifer v. Vaught et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Michael Caine Redifer, Sr.,
Petitioner,
v.
T. Vaught, Warden, and FCI Sandstone,
Respondents.
File No. 25-cv-933 (ECT/LIB)
OPINION AND ORDER
Pro se Petitioner Michael Caine Redifer, Sr. has filed a motion to alter or amend a
judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), ECF No. 38, and a motion to
file an amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus, ECF No. 39. 	The motions will be
denied.
Mr. Redifer filed his initial petition for a writ of habeas corpus on March 13, 2025.
ECF No. 1. On May 19, he filed a supplement to his petition. ECF No. 12. On August
21, he filed a motion to amend his petition, ECF No. 28, which was granted-in-part and
denied-in-part, ECF No. 32. 	And on September 18, he moved to submit a supplemental
pleading. 	ECF No. 30. 	That motion was granted. 	ECF No. 32. 	On December 10, Mr.
Redifer filed a letter indicating he intended to file a yet another amended habeas petition,
but that he would “not be finished with the pleading until January (maybe early February).”
ECF No. 31. 	On December 29, 2025, Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois issued an Order
and Report and Recommendation; Judge Brisbois recommended that Mr. Redifer’s petition
for a writ of habeas corpus be denied. ECF No. 33. Mr. Redifer moved for an extension
of time to file objections to the Report and Recommendation, explaining that additional
CASE 0:25-cv-00933-ECT-LIB Doc. 48 Filed 04/21/26 Page 1 of 5

2
time was “necessary so [he] can review this Court’s findings and recommendations, and
then decide” how to proceed. ECF No. 34. That motion was granted in part. ECF No. 35.
Mr. Redifer failed to file objections by the extended deadline, see Docket, and I accepted
Judge Brisbois’s Report and Recommendation and dismissed Mr. Redifer’s petition for a
writ of habeas corpus, ECF No. 36. 	Judgment was entered on February 11, 2026. 	ECF
No. 37.
Now, Mr. Redifer seeks to alter or amend the judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 59(e), ECF No. 38, and to file an amended petition consisting of 152 pages,
ECF Nos. 39, 42.
A post-judgment motion for leave to amend “will be granted only ‘if it is consistent
with the stringent standards governing the grant of Rule 59(e) and Rule 60(b) relief.’” In
re SuperValu, Inc., 925 F.3d 955, 961 (8th Cir. 2019) (quoting United States v. Mask of
Ka-Nefer-Nefer, 752 F.3d 737, 743 (8th Cir. 2014)). “A district court has broad discretion
in determining whether to grant or deny a motion to alter or amend judgment pursuant to
Rule 59(e) . . . .” United States v. Metro. St. Louis Sewer Dist., 440 F.3d 930, 933 (8th Cir.
2006). “Motions under Rule 59(e) serve the limited function of correcting manifest errors
of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence and cannot be used to introduce new
evidence, tender new legal theories, or raise arguments which could have been offered or
raised prior to entry of judgment.” Yeransian v. B. Riley FBR, Inc., 984 F.3d 633, 636 (8th
Cir. 2021) (citation modified).
Mr. Redifer’s motions to alter or amend judgment and to amend the petition fail to
meet the Rule 59(e) standards. 	Mr. Redifer seeks to both introduce new arguments and
CASE 0:25-cv-00933-ECT-LIB Doc. 48 Filed 04/21/26 Page 2 of 5

3
rehash old ones. To the extent he seeks to bring new arguments and legal theories to the
Court’s attention, Rule 59(e) does not permit him to do so post-judgment. See Yeransian,
984 F.3d at 636. 	Mr. Redifer argues he has identified newly discovered evidence. 	ECF
No. 38 at 2. 	However, a review of the proffered “evidence” reveals it could have been
raised prior to entry of judgment. See id. at 37–41 (referencing an “interpretation[] of the
First Step Act” released in “October 2024,” an “internet posting “ released in “October
2025,” and a Government Accountability Office report that Mr. Redifer “started to review”
“before this Court’s judgment”). To the extent Mr. Redifer seeks to revisit old arguments,
he has failed to identify any “manifest errors of law or fact.” Yeransian, 984 F.3d at 636.
“A district court has discretion under Rule 60(b) to grant postjudgment leave to file
an amended complaint if the motion is ‘made within a reasonable time,’ Rule 60(c)(1), and
the moving party shows exceptional circumstances warranting extraordinary relief.” Mask
of Ka-Nefer-Nefer, 752 F.3d at 743 (citation modified). “Whether leave to amend is sought
pre judgment or post judgment, it is appropriately denied ‘where there are compelling
reasons such as undue delay, bad faith, or dilatory motive, repeated failure to cure
deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the non-moving party,
or futility of the amendment.’” In re SuperValu, Inc., Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig.,
No. 14–MD–2586 (ADM/TNL), 2018 WL 1189327, at *6 (D. Minn. Mar. 7, 2018)
(quoting Moses.com Sec., Inc. v. Comprehensive Software Sys., Inc., 406 F.3d 1052, 1065
(8th Cir. 2005)), aff’d sub nom. In re SuperValu, Inc., 925 F.3d 955 (8th Cir. 2019); see
also Wagner v. Bierwerth, No. 25-cv-3444 (LMP/SGE), 2026 WL 446423, at *2 (D. Minn.
Feb. 17, 2026). “An amendment is futile if the amended [pleading] ‘could not withstand a
CASE 0:25-cv-00933-ECT-LIB Doc. 48 Filed 04/21/26 Page 3 of 5

4
motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).’” Hillesheim v. Myron’s Cards & Gifts, Inc., 897
F.3d 953, 955 (8th Cir. 2018). To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a petition must “contain
sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citation modified).
Mr. Redifer’s request to amend his petition post-judgment will be denied due to
futility. 	In his most recently filed amended petition, ECF No. 42, Mr. Redifer argues he
should have been transferred to prerelease custody on July 16, 2022, and seeks immediate
placement into prerelease custody. 	Id. at 151. But as Magistrate Judge Brisbois already
explained, this is not a cognizable habeas claim. 	ECF No. 33 at 9; see Hernandez v.
Eischen, No. 24-cv-27 (KMM/DLM), 2024 WL 4839827, at *5 (D. Minn. Oct. 28, 2024)
(“Challenging the place of confinement—i.e., asking to be placed in an RRC or on home
confinement—is not a cognizable habeas claim.”), R. & R. adopted, 2024 WL 4839158 (D.
Minn. Nov. 20, 2024); Shay v. Rardin, No. 24-cv-3418 (PAM/DTS), 2024 WL 4574391
(D. Minn. Sept. 19, 2024) (“A claim that a federal prisoner should sooner be transferred to
prerelease custody or home confinement amounts only to an attack on the conditions of the
prisoner’s confinement and therefore is not cognizable on habeas review.”), R. & R.
adopted, 2024 WL 4573895, at *1 (D. Minn. Oct. 24, 2024).
Mr. Redifer also seeks to challenge a variety of federal statutes and regulations and
Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) program statements and seeks to compel the publication of an
unpublished policy. 	ECF No. 42 at 151. 	To the extent these challenged provisions bear
on Mr. Redifer’s transfer into prerelease custody, his challenge is not cognizable under
habeas review. 	To the extent these challenged provisions do not affect his transfer into
CASE 0:25-cv-00933-ECT-LIB Doc. 48 Filed 04/21/26 Page 4 of 5

5
prerelease custody, Mr. Redifer has not identified how they affect him, and thus, does not
have standing to challenge them. See Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc., 568 U.S. 85, 90 (2013)
(stating that Article III standing “requires those who invoke the power of a federal court to
demonstrate standing—a personal injury fairly traceable to the defendant’s allegedly
unlawful conduct and likely to be redressed by the requested relief.” (citation modified)).
Accordingly, Mr. Redifer’s motion for leave to amend his petition will be denied due to
the futility of the amendment.
ORDER
Based on the foregoing, and on all the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS
ORDERED THAT:
1. 	Petitioner Michael Caine Redifer, Sr.’s Rule 59(e) Motion [ECF No. 38] is
DENIED.
2. 	Petitioner’s Motion Requesting Permission to Submit an Amended Writ of
Habeas Corpus [ECF No. 39] is DENIED.
3. 	Petitioner’s Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees
or Costs [ECF No. 43] is DENIED AS MOOT.
Dated: April 21, 2026 	s/ Eric C. Tostrud
Eric C. Tostrud
United States District Court
CASE 0:25-cv-00933-ECT-LIB Doc. 48 Filed 04/21/26 Page 5 of 5